In my county there were maybe 20 people that polled Green Party Ballots and zero in my precinct and they ran a total of two candidates for precinct committeeman and that was it. If they dont step it up at best they are going to be a spoiler that will throw a few races to the GOP and they will probably end up losing their ballot status in the not to distant future.
Levois
· 1 year ago
The highest vote getter I saw was 28 votes. I forget what ward that was. Most of the top committeemen races were on the northside. What you cited was the south side wards where I would imagine (save probably the 5th ward with Hyde Park and the University of Chicago where I would think the Greens would have made inroads) there would be some resistance.
ionchicago
· 1 year ago
Without knowing the details of GP party-building efforts (and whether they were a failure or just nonexistent) - I'd say it's safe to assume that the people who would be expected to vote Green (i.e. mostly disaffected Democrats) chose instead to vote in the Democratic primary - for Obama(?).
cermak_rd
· 1 year ago
Well, in my case, the reason I would not take a Green ballot in just about any case is simply pragmatic. Many races in my area are decided by the primary because the GOP doesn't choose to compete or competes ineffectively. So it is in my interest to take a Dem ballot where I can make good choices for judicial candidates and such.
No Peotone Airport
· 1 year ago
The Green Party presidential candidates are dreadful. According to the United States Green Party website (www.gp.org), Jared Ball has already dropped out of the race, and Howie Hawkins is running as a placeholder for Ralph Nader, 'until Mr. Nader announces his intentions for the 2008 election.'
So Illinois primary voters chose a major party ballot over a Green ballot by a ratio of over 1000-to-1 yesterday. As cermak_rd notes, reasons will vary depending on where you live. But given the choices at the top, I'm certainly not surprised.
Jack Spratt
· 1 year ago
The fact that this was an open primary held on "Super Tuesday" no doubt drained votes from the Greens. All but the die-hard Greens probably chose to take major party ballots so they could have a say in the big, media-driven races. Nor was much campaigning done by the Greens, since most races (such as the committeeperson races) were non-contested. This can in no measure be taken as reflective of overall support for the Greens statewide. The numbers are only those of the party central core. No doubt the next gubernatorial election will tell a different story.
wordslinger
· 1 year ago
I was one of the 10 plus percent who voted for the Green's Whitney in 2006 because I couldn't pull the lever for Blago or Topinka. Strictly protest, as I suspect were most Whitney's voters.
History shows there's no room for a competitive third party in our Republic. Either the upstart party dies or it replaces a sick existing party.
Six Degrees of Separation
· 1 year ago
Don't they have to get 5% showing on the ballot to be "certified" for the next election cycle or something? I remember the Illinois Solidarity Party being created in the LaRouchie debacle, then used as a shell later on for other candidates, until it withered on the vine from atrophy.
RMW Stanford
· 1 year ago
A lot of the Greens seem to have a greatly over estimated the amount of support that Whitney got that based off his party, positions and himself, and how much he got because a lot of the public disliked both Judy Bar and Governor Rod. If the Greens want to be taken seriously they need to do a lot more than they are doing now.
Squideshi
· 1 year ago
I think that many people, including Rich, are underestimating the impact of the reported widespread statewide election irregularities affecting the Green Party primary. Besides the outright refusal of many Democratic and Republican election judges to offer the Green Party ballot, there are a number of other factors, such as polling places failing to post all three sample ballots, as required by law. Consequently, many people who may have declared affiliation with the Green Party did not even know this was an option.
This doesn't mean that I don't think the party needs to do more to get out its message; however, when visiting polling places yesterday, I heard many people talking about the Green Party and being introduced to it for the very first time. I am sure that many of these people were reluctant to immediately declare affiliation with a party they knew nothing about; however, those same people now know about the party, and many of them will go look to see what the party is all about. I admit, I have already seen the spike in traffic on the ilgp.org website; so I'm not so much guessing.
The Green Party has a hard time advertising because we choose not to accept corporate money, which means that we can't afford the same paid advertising that the Republicans and Democrats can; however, ironically, this is also one of our strongest selling points. When people find out that we do not accept corporate money, the response is nearly universally positive.
This first primary election helped advertise and get out the Green Party name to voters. Many people's interests have been peaked and many will now want to learn about the Green Party. For those who did choose a Green ballot, the party will be following up with those people and recruiting.
There is no question about it--the Green Party is a startup party in Illinois. Of course our numbers will be small at the onset; but for me, the more important statistic is not the current number but the overall, long term trend. So long as the party is growing--so long as the numbers are improving--even if they are small now, I still consider this a success. The Green Party is about steady, long-term, sustainable growth--not a flash in the pan, overnight success. That's one thing that this party focuses on that separates it from some of the other, less successful new parties of the past. Remember, the star that burns twice as bright only lasts half as long!
RBD
· 1 year ago
In my precinct the only race that had multiple Green candidates was the Presidential one. Duhh. Why pull a Green ballot when there are no real contests on it?
Phil Huckelberry
· 1 year ago
Rich, your comments are precisely what the powers that be were looking for: an evaluation of the raw numbers without context as to why the numbers were driven so low. The real story is the complete media blackout of the Green primary nationally, and the widespread suppression of the Green vote in Illinois. And remember that Illinois is an open primary state, and voters are clearly assuming that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will win the Presidency, so a lot of people who regularly vote Green and Republican crossed over to pull Democratic ballots.
We don't think what happened was a bust. We think what happened might be grounds for a major lawsuit.
That said, I think the criticism of the small number of precinct committeeperson candidates is very valid. The people commenting that the Green Party has a lot more work to do are right. We do. And we'll do it.
Observer
· 1 year ago
Huckelberry. So you will "do the work" to make the Green Party more respectable? One thing you will have to do is deal with the likes of new Green Party Committeeman Nathan Peoples. He is a former political hack who is in it for the dough alone. If that is the tenor of your party leadership, good luck in your "work".
Sacks Romana
· 1 year ago
It depends a lot on how you look at it, but I don't believe the primary was a failure at all.
First of all, let's keep in mind that there's never been a legally established party in the state of Illinois other than the Democrats or Republicans (I'm not counting the Solidarity/LaRouche fiasco). Whether you believe the Greens will become a powerful force in Illinois politics or not, the IL Green primary is a historically unique event, and doesn't exactly bear comparison to the Democratic and Republican contests from yesterday. Especially because those contests were also very historically unique, as this has been one of the most wide-open presidential races in years, and one of the candidates is the most charismatic politician in Illinois history.
The purpose of a primary is for an individual to have a say in that party's nominee for any number of offices. As others have pointed out, the only contested race for the Greens was for president. Especially given the high profile presidential runs of the other parties, it doesn't provide a lot of incentive for someone to take a Green primary ballot, independent of their support for the party or its candidates. There are undoubtedly thousands more people that will vote Green in the general election that still care more strongly who the nominee of the other two parties is going to be. What we saw yesterday wasn't the number of voters interested in the Greens, but the number of voters invested in the Greens.
The Greens are obviously focused on recruiting and running strong candidates in the general. They don't have the problem yet of having to decide between more than one credible candidate. It might be a sign of political immaturity, but nothing about it is a failure.
Yes, the Green Ward committeemen had very low vote totals in Chicago. These are internal party officers, not positions of immense clout and wealth. I don't see how it's any more pathetic for the Greens to take low vote totals and build their party, while dozens of the Republican ward committeemen positions are filled and controlled by machine Democrats! The Green Metro Water Reclamation District candidates may have only taken about 300 votes each, but at least the party is fielding three candidates for those seats, something else the Republican party isn't capable of.
I say give it A LOT more time before declaring the movement a fluke. Again, yesterday was a measure of how many voters chose to invest in the long-term decisions that the Green Party makes. Let's see how that investment grows into the 08 General, future primaries, and the years to come, before declaring failure.
RMW Stanford
· 1 year ago
Even with any irregularities, the Presidential election and anything else that may of influenced the Green primary turn out taken into account, it would still seem they are only drawing real support from a small fraction of the populace and that does not bod well for the long term health of the party or the ability of it to stay a established party.
Squideshi
· 1 year ago
I think Phil Huckelberry made an important point that I had not mentioned. We did not, and do not, get equal coverage in the media. We didn't even get equitable coverage in the media. While it is true that more and more media outlets are now starting to at least mention that we exist when covering other parties and other candidates, a quick look at most of the stories shows that they really only cover the Democrats and Republicans. This has a big impact on voter turnout; and it had an even bigger impact for us, because we rely on "earned" coverage, rather than buying media.
Jack Spratt
· 1 year ago
Taking a look at the numbers, I'd say the Greens are doing pretty well. According to the data on the Cook County Clerk's Office, in Cook County in the 2004 primary, there were 4 Green voters; in the 2006 primary, there were 8 (an increase of 100%); in the 2008 primary, there were 460. The increase between '06 and '08 was 5,750%! If they grow as much in the next cycle as they did in this, they would field 26,460 Cook County voters in the 2010 primary (and one and a half million in 2012!!).
Granted, this rate of increase is not likely to continue without change, but it's pretty impressive from where I'm sitting. And they did all this without any media coverage to speak of, a shoestring budget, and a complacent electorate of lemmings conditioned to accept the "two party system."
M.V.
· 1 year ago
"And the ward committeeman contests were a joke…"
Hard-hitting analysis! This has to be the political one-liner of the year, thus far.
T.J.
· 1 year ago
1. "The real story is the complete media blackout of the Green primary nationally, and the widespread suppression of the Green vote in Illinois."
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
2. "The Greens are obviously focused on recruiting and running strong candidates in the general."
Ha ha ha ha ha!
This thread is too cute by half.
MoreChoicesMoreVoices
· 1 year ago
T.J.:
Wake up and use some critical think and stop drinking the kool-aid.
The Greens DON'T get fair coverage and the Greens WERE treated unequally at a lot of polling places.
Rich Miller
· 1 year ago
Yes, they didn't get fair coverage, but it was more than proportional to the vote they got.
Walter Esler
· 1 year ago
There was widespread vote fraud in Illinois. Voters requesting Green Ballots were told there were no green ballots. Others were give ballots but prevented from putting their ballots in the scanners.
All Comments
So Illinois primary voters chose a major party ballot over a Green ballot by a ratio of over 1000-to-1 yesterday. As cermak_rd notes, reasons will vary depending on where you live. But given the choices at the top, I'm certainly not surprised.
History shows there's no room for a competitive third party in our Republic. Either the upstart party dies or it replaces a sick existing party.
This doesn't mean that I don't think the party needs to do more to get out its message; however, when visiting polling places yesterday, I heard many people talking about the Green Party and being introduced to it for the very first time. I am sure that many of these people were reluctant to immediately declare affiliation with a party they knew nothing about; however, those same people now know about the party, and many of them will go look to see what the party is all about. I admit, I have already seen the spike in traffic on the ilgp.org website; so I'm not so much guessing.
The Green Party has a hard time advertising because we choose not to accept corporate money, which means that we can't afford the same paid advertising that the Republicans and Democrats can; however, ironically, this is also one of our strongest selling points. When people find out that we do not accept corporate money, the response is nearly universally positive.
This first primary election helped advertise and get out the Green Party name to voters. Many people's interests have been peaked and many will now want to learn about the Green Party. For those who did choose a Green ballot, the party will be following up with those people and recruiting.
There is no question about it--the Green Party is a startup party in Illinois. Of course our numbers will be small at the onset; but for me, the more important statistic is not the current number but the overall, long term trend. So long as the party is growing--so long as the numbers are improving--even if they are small now, I still consider this a success. The Green Party is about steady, long-term, sustainable growth--not a flash in the pan, overnight success. That's one thing that this party focuses on that separates it from some of the other, less successful new parties of the past. Remember, the star that burns twice as bright only lasts half as long!
We don't think what happened was a bust. We think what happened might be grounds for a major lawsuit.
That said, I think the criticism of the small number of precinct committeeperson candidates is very valid. The people commenting that the Green Party has a lot more work to do are right. We do. And we'll do it.
First of all, let's keep in mind that there's never been a legally established party in the state of Illinois other than the Democrats or Republicans (I'm not counting the Solidarity/LaRouche fiasco). Whether you believe the Greens will become a powerful force in Illinois politics or not, the IL Green primary is a historically unique event, and doesn't exactly bear comparison to the Democratic and Republican contests from yesterday. Especially because those contests were also very historically unique, as this has been one of the most wide-open presidential races in years, and one of the candidates is the most charismatic politician in Illinois history.
The purpose of a primary is for an individual to have a say in that party's nominee for any number of offices. As others have pointed out, the only contested race for the Greens was for president. Especially given the high profile presidential runs of the other parties, it doesn't provide a lot of incentive for someone to take a Green primary ballot, independent of their support for the party or its candidates. There are undoubtedly thousands more people that will vote Green in the general election that still care more strongly who the nominee of the other two parties is going to be. What we saw yesterday wasn't the number of voters interested in the Greens, but the number of voters invested in the Greens.
The Greens are obviously focused on recruiting and running strong candidates in the general. They don't have the problem yet of having to decide between more than one credible candidate. It might be a sign of political immaturity, but nothing about it is a failure.
Yes, the Green Ward committeemen had very low vote totals in Chicago. These are internal party officers, not positions of immense clout and wealth. I don't see how it's any more pathetic for the Greens to take low vote totals and build their party, while dozens of the Republican ward committeemen positions are filled and controlled by machine Democrats! The Green Metro Water Reclamation District candidates may have only taken about 300 votes each, but at least the party is fielding three candidates for those seats, something else the Republican party isn't capable of.
I say give it A LOT more time before declaring the movement a fluke. Again, yesterday was a measure of how many voters chose to invest in the long-term decisions that the Green Party makes. Let's see how that investment grows into the 08 General, future primaries, and the years to come, before declaring failure.
Granted, this rate of increase is not likely to continue without change, but it's pretty impressive from where I'm sitting. And they did all this without any media coverage to speak of, a shoestring budget, and a complacent electorate of lemmings conditioned to accept the "two party system."
Hard-hitting analysis! This has to be the political one-liner of the year, thus far.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
2. "The Greens are obviously focused on recruiting and running strong candidates in the general."
Ha ha ha ha ha!
This thread is too cute by half.
Wake up and use some critical think and stop drinking the kool-aid.
The Greens DON'T get fair coverage and the Greens WERE treated unequally at a lot of polling places.